Now there are plenty of legal and illegal ways in which a person could have been in NZ prior to 29 November 2010 with a visa of a residency type and no permit of a residency type, so it is mischevious to assume that one was issued at the border just because the person was now in NZ. For example, a completely legal one is that one may have traveled to NZ under the residency visa but the permit of a residency type refusedor not requested at the border, but a visitors' one (say) given; that permit being especially easy to get if the traveller is from a visa waiver nation (as, for example, dot.com is).

In dot.com's case, as best I can make out, he was issued a residency visa offshore in November 2010 but that prior to 29 November 2010. If he had travelled to NZ prior to 29 November 2010 he would expect to, but not be entitled to, have been issued a permit at the border entitling him to residency (assuming no issue raised at the border), but he travelled to NZ after 29 November 2010 and so no permit was issued at the border, he entered under the transitional arrangement that recognised pre 29 November visas as residence class visas under the new Act and which now serve the purpose of the old permit in setting out the conditions of residency on the NZ side of the border.

Yeah I definitely get what you are saying there - under the old legislation a person issued a residency visa may or may not have been a legal subject for GCSB surveillance when they entered the country depending on the stamp issued/applied for at the actual time of entry.

The prime minister said - had Dotcom come to New Zealand with a residency visa prior to the change then Dotcom would have been a legal subject for GCSB surveillance.

It follows that the PM is incorrect in assuming that Dotcom would most definitely have been a legal subject for GCSB surveillance if Dotcom had arrived at this time.

The article indicates the PM's office will not be commenting on the issue until next week.

I doubt the journalist has political purpose in mind - it is normal for journalists to follow up on this kind of thing.

TheUngeek: Not nzs typical politically biased reporters its not. Well thru may follow it p, but they will leave out stuffto support their opinions

I believe this to be true sometimes. I find myself in agreement. All the same, journalism is a profession like any other and there are very good professional journalists around worthy of respect. Of the best, the level of professionalism is such that you could never guess their personal political affiliation or opinions based on the way they go at politicians with whom you would assume they share a similar point of view.

gzt: The prime minister said - had Dotcom come to New Zealand with a residency visa prior to the change then Dotcom would have been a legal subject for GCSB surveillance...

I don't know exactly what the PM (nor any other politician for that matter) said as I am not privy to all his conversations and am wary of relying on the media, but if that is what he said then he is correct.

If he had of come to NZ prior to the change, Dotcom actually needed a permit giving residency before he would have been immune from GSCB surveillance. If he entered NZ and held a residency visa but no permit (as I set out this is possible) then he was not a resident and therefore he was not immune.

So it definitely does not follow that the PM (or anyone else who claims the same) "is incorrect in assuming that Dotcom would most definitely have been a legal subject for GCSB surveillance if Dotcom had arrived at this time" as you claim.

I thought all of that was pretty clear and beyond question, but if you believe that he just needed a residency visa prior to 29 November 2010 in order to be a resident then I suggest you ask someone in immigration (or, you will perhaps find it on the NZIS website).

But as I said, these are all matters of fact so anyone distorting it to use as an argument for an investigation, extra to what is now being carried out, either does not understand the immigration facts, or is doing so for mischievious motive based on the publics' general lack of knowledge of immigration requirements.

The actual crux of the matter is how the mistake came to be made. That mistake was made by public servants whose mistaken actions (assuming there was no criminality, which is up to the police to determine) are only subject to remedy through employment legislation and I would be surprised if such remedy does not occur.